Forums | MacLife

I read the NYTimes article linked from that page, and I don't see ANYTHING that would indicate that this company is a bit shady, other than the fact they are in the middle east, and have "Arab" in their country name. None of those in and of themselves means "security threat" and it even seems that this Dubai Ports World has a lot of experience with this kind of thing.

I'm sure the president's crew knows just as well as anyone how sketchy arabs are, and they wouldn't have made this decision lightly (unless of course they're in cahoots with the terr'ists, which this is also no significant evidence of).

By the time these stories get printed, they have an air of racism about them because of the Saudi connection in the 9/11 attacks. This is the knee-jerk reaction and only the tip of the iceberg to such a story. Only after digging deeper is every reader of this news relieved to find out that there is nothing to fear, the workers at the ports are not going to be Arabs, and very little will change in operations.
When you look at the liberal view of such an incident, it is that the President is an idiot and he is responsible for any security risk, that is if you think it's a risk, cause it's not once you learn the facts. The conservative view is that when you look at the facts you will see it's not a risk, because the Bush Administration is not objecting to the purchase and they know what they are doing.
When looking at the ultra-liberal view, it's fantastic that we are empowering the UAE with our 6 ports, and we should give them more power in this country to end all war, so Bush is an idiot for not doing more sooner. The ultra-conservative view is that Bush and Congress are idiots by giving up the country's security; our hands will be bound by terrorists.
It sucks to be the President of the United States of America right now.

Strategically important things like ports should not be under foreign control under any circumstances. My objection have absolutely nothing to do with what seem to be completely groundless accusations against the UAE.
I would feel exactly the same way if it were any other country and I am surprised to find out we have allowed foreign companies to run out ports before.
Some things you keep under direct local control no matter what and this would be one of those.
What�s next? I bet we could get a fantastic bid out of the Russians to manage our nuclear power plants.
Heck that would be a real money saver, those guys work for peanuts and iodine pills.

Last edited by Pariah (2006-02-20 1:55 pm)

The balance of power here seems to be economy. Although the previous owner is a London-based company, nobody seemed to care or know until now. Once you realize the flow of money must be sustained which means business as usual, it doesn't matter what country owns the company running a port, as long as the work continues.

I like that a senior Dubai Ports executive left that comany just last month, gets appointed by the president to a cabinet position dealing with ports, then a month later his former company lands the aquisition and the rights to some major ports in the U.S.  I think the real story's buried in there.

knobtwirler wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

I like that a senior Dubai Ports executive left that comany just last month, gets appointed by the president to a cabinet position dealing with ports, then a month later his former company lands the aquisition and the rights to some major ports in the U.S.  I think the real story's buried in there.

That sounds amazingly realistic; do you have any links to support these events?

Sure. Dubai Ports World's own company website.

http://www.dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39

It may be nothing, but it's at least newsworthy to mention in any article dealing with the subject and I'm surprised to see it has not been more widely reported.

I think this is a good move. It'll show the Arab world that we can trust them, and that some of them can handle responsibility maturely.

hopefully, the quality of our ports will improve

Historically, the Bush team shows an inclination to throw contracts around with "pork" being the prime issue, rather than national security.  (Halliburton)

The speed at which this decision became public (cough: out of nowhere ) makes me quite suspicious and deserves at the very least a good airing out.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393375p-333478c.html wrote:

NY Daily News

WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.

One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.

Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration....


The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.

According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

Congressional sources said the President has until March 2 to trigger that harder look.

We wouldn't turn over our customs service or our border patrol to a foreign government," [ Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat of NJ ] , said during a news conference. "We shouldn't turn over the ports of the United States, either."  Forbes

When I hear "western imperialist nation," I immediately think of Djibouti.